Uston v. Resorts International Hotel, Inc.

Supreme Court of New Jersey · 1982 · Property
445 A.2d 370 (1982)
Updated
Propertycasino control actpreemptionright to excludereasonable accesspublic accommodationscard countingblackjack

Facts

Kenneth Uston used a card-counting strategy in blackjack that, under the Commission's existing blackjack rules, increased his chances of winning. After a rule change restricting reshuffling improved the effectiveness of card counting, Resorts asked the Commission chairman whether any statute or regulation barred it from excluding professional card counters, and then barred Uston that same day. Resorts later adopted standards and a general policy for excluding card counters. Uston had not violated any Commission rule governing blackjack play.

Issue

Whether a licensed casino may exclude a patron from blackjack tables for card counting under either a common law right to exclude or the Casino Control Act. Also, whether owners of premises open to the public possess an absolute common law right to exclude patrons without good cause.

Rule

The Casino Control Act gives the Casino Control Commission exclusive authority to regulate the rules and methods of playing licensed casino games, and that authority precludes a casino from excluding a patron for playing under existing Commission rules in a way that improves his odds. More broadly, when property owners open premises to the public, their common law right to exclude is limited by the public's common law right of reasonable access; they may not exclude persons unreasonably, arbitrarily, or discriminatorily, though they may exclude those who disrupt operations or threaten security.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

  • The court's holding and reasoning
  • Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
  • 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Sign up free to see more →
Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
Bayfront Palace Casino in Atlantic City told Lena Ortiz she could not play baccarat because she used a perfectly legal scorekeeping technique that helped her decide when to raise her wagers. The Casino Commission's current baccarat regulations do not prohibit the technique, and Lena has not violated any posted gaming rule.

May Bayfront Palace exclude Lena from baccarat on that basis?

Explanation. The majority held that the Casino Control Act gives the Commission exclusive authority to set the rules and methods of licensed casino games. When a patron is playing in accordance with existing Commission rules, the casino cannot bar the patron merely for successfully exploiting those rules. The casino's own profit concerns do not restore independent authority over methods of play.